denisa-diana asked:
You talk a lot about Sasuke. What would you say are his flaws?
I’m going to copy paste a fantastic response (which is long) from an online friend who elaborated very nicely on Sasuke’s characterization:
Before I start, I’d like to make something as plain as possible: you can’t analyse anything socio-political and -cultural in fiction without applying your own political knowledge, affiliations, and leanings and pouring them into the topic and reaching a conclusion you’d reach to rationalize what you believe in. Nothing takes place in a vacuum, not even the fiction you consume and its context that you try and understand with the knowledge you’ve got at your disposal. In this regard, what you internalize become your tools to understand what lies in the world about you. This is precisely why the debate rages on that does art affect life or does life affect art? Perhaps it’s true both ways.
Sasuke as a character represents the perfect dichotomy between your own approach to Why and What. It depends on how you look at Sasuke as a person, or a character to be more precise. His flaws become strengths and vice versa depending upon your perspective. If you look at Sasuke from a nationalistic perspective, he’s anti-State, and thus, stands against everything the State stands for; furthermore, if you stand at the center and to the right of ideologies (what we’d normally refer to as centrists or moderates and conservatives for those that are to the right of the line; liberal, moderates, and centrists are mostly to the center right, but that’s a different debate altogether), Sasuke’s too extreme. He upsets the balance and, as a result, upsets the very concept State as a whole is built on. He veers too far to the left. In this regard, he’s a radical as he doesn’t believe in the idea of hierarchy on which modern democracies are built on; and that’s something people have grown up with.
Remember, what is limited to what you see (listings of things), but why opens up a whole new dimension to the aforementioned categorical listings. If you remove the latter, you’ve confined the character to your understanding only.
To elaborate on this a little more, let’s take the idea of democracy and State. The entire modern idea of democracy is dedicated to the development of State from divine law. It’s mentioned in Political Ideology as a Religion: “The Idolatry of Democracy by Maxwell O. Chibundu”, “Biblical Foundations of Democracy byJohn A. Hutchison”, and Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”, as well; my point is, that’s how you’d define Religion. If it has a set of dogmas, a cosmogony, a list of “saints” and a congregation, then you can call it a religion. The dogmas are clear. For instance, the USA can’t be wrong, nor can it be trialed for war crimes, everything it does is for the common good, etc., and that has been made much more obvious by her recent deplorable attitude against the ICC. The cosmogony is the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. The civilized world started with the USA. Saints? The slave-owning holier-than-most founding fathers. And the congregation is the list of people buying into this.
Can you, in all honesty, expect the people that value nationalism to not view the context they come across (fiction or otherwise) with the same tunnel-vision they exhibit in real life? After all, art imitates life or vice versa. For instance, Jaws led to a massive decline in the shark population in the seventies (we’ve always been very content with animal cruelty whilst pretending to be very morally upright). The earliest known example of “suicide contagion” caused by media relates to a German novel titled ‘The Sorrows of Young Werther’, written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. (Thirteen Reasons Why is a more recent example.)
In his autobiography, Goethe claims that writing the novel had a therapeutic effect on his own thoughts of suicide as a young man. Imagine that the story was written that helped exorcise the author’s personal demons ignited in many of his readers, sparking a second, and more lethal, literary sensation. The alt-right misread both The Matrix and Fight Club. The effects of “Birth of a Nation”, a silent film steeped in racial propaganda, on race relations were devastating, and its reverberations are still felt to this day. (This, this, and this highlight this more elaborately.) It’s a film that glorifies the Ku Klux Klan.
I can go on and on here and they’d be no end to how art directly affected real life and vice versa (there are times when it affected nothing, but that’s not the topic of our discussion). Then why’s Naruto so different? The answer is, it isn’t. Naruto, too, creates an ending that aggressively dehumanizes anti-State rhetoric to the point where characters like Tobirama outright utilize “dog whistles”, a dehumanization and othering technique as described by Ian Haney López, to malign the other clan and justify their racial propaganda; and its proponents, readers, in turn adopt the same approach as Tobirama’s (without any hard evidence which he himself accepts) when he calls Uchiha, “The Cursed Clan”, “A Clan Affected by Evil”, and “Clan with a Curse of Hatred”. These are nothing more than “coded racial appeals” that are new forms of modern racism. I’m unsure as to how anyone would see them as otherwise. Kishimoto himself stated in this interview that he finds none of this “anti-State” stance justifiable, no matter what the victims had suffered through:
“Kishimoto: Oh, but you did a beautiful job. I mean, dealing with hate is hard. Like, okay, so people want to get back at others who’ve wronged them, but what’s justifiable about that?” (Given Japan’s denial of the atrocities it committed and Kishimoto’s own conservative socio-political stance, I don’t think any anti-State character was ever going to receive any justice in his manga.)
If the aforementioned fiction (and many, many more) affected people, then Naruto has the power to affect people, too. You can’t consider it as the odd one out when it’s written for impressionable children with a very specific message in mind; and many of whom that grew up whilst reading the manga absolutely adore the deplorable soft-framing of Leaf, an extreme fascist state ruled by despots, whilst simultaneously justifying all sorts of extreme violence unabashedly utilized to maintain its hegemony. On the other hand, it has the power to be affected by the socio-political leanings of the author himself. This isn’t anything unheard of. After all, nothing is created, understood, and internalized in a vacuum. Your knowledge of the real world is your tool to understand things, fiction and real. You don’t create knowledge; you acquire it, use it, and apply it. Your understanding is limited by your knowledge. Your understanding doesn’t exceed your knowledge. In fact, your understanding is hampered by your lack of knowledge.
This is quite aptly elaborated in ‘Outlaw Kings and Rebellion Chic’ by Alister MacQuarrie. Everyone should give it a read as it elaborates on the concept that why people are abhorrently antagonistic towards radical characters. “What” simply isn’t good enough for critical-thinking, I’m afraid.
Seeing Sasuke from this perspective creates a tunnel vision that puts aside the context: you’d only see “what” he stands against, not “why” he stands against it. The what takes away the context; and, as a result, it takes away every facet of why. You only look at what and its dimensions, not why and its dimensions. From this angle, Sasuke’s a character of “whats” to you: what he did was selfish; what he did to his friends was selfish; what he left behind was selfish; what he left to was selfish; what he turned into was a traitor; what he became was a terrorist; what he did in the war was a war-crime; etc.
What this additionally does is that it drags the what to his identity, as well, and throws away the why: what his clan stood for was treason; what they did was not justice; what they invited was war; what they wanted to bring forth was destruction; what they invited was their own destruction; what they got was what they deserved; etc.
As you can see, “what” creates a completely different character, a one-sided character. What this perspective does is that it removes the contextual evidence that should surround it, expound it, encompass it into a complete whole that doesn’t strip away from the character its value in the narrative. What sticks to the character (even people in real life that are no more than characters to you, as well) is your own understanding of how things ought to be, not how they are. As you discard the why, you assume that every action should fit into the what idea, regardless of the fact that whether it fits the idea or not: what he did was selfish, so everything he did was selfish; what he stood for was terrorism, so everything he did was terrorism; what he defied was just, so everything he defied was just; etc. What focuses on the flaw in a manner that doesn’t consider the reason why any particular trait exists in the first place. Traits, negative or positive, don’t emerge from anything. They have their origins. To throw them away is to throw away the basic idea of the human psyche. That’s another reason why people create more whats: what he did was unethical as another character did it right; what he supported was extreme as another character did it right (or chose a moderate option); what he fought for was immoral as another character did it right; etc.
What “what” manufactures is a series of “rights” from the supposed ideas of “wrongs”. In this regard, no matter what Sasuke does, the readers have already decided as to what they’d choose to see; and no matter what they’re presented with, their minds will keep swinging back to what as they’ve never asked themselves the whys, even in real life. For instance, you’d see this Fandom talk a lot of Justice, without delving into its mechanics. They erroneously and absurdly conflate Justice with morality and law that the State is built upon, when all of them couldn’t be more different from one another. That’s why you’d see words like “they committed treason”, “they broke the law”, and “they were put down because they broke the law”. It’s … predictable given their complete lack of grasp of political issues (Kishimoto isn’t to blame for more than half of the issues hurled his way; most of the criticism doesn’t have anything to do with morality, at all, which isn’t surprising given what the Fandom supports). They enjoy over-simplifying concepts and reaching conclusions that are of little to no value for discussions.
Digressing here for a bit, I’d like to quote from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls; and, even though I don’t agree completely with this book, this excerpt puts my argument across fairly well: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.”
The idea of “justice” is based on inequality, not law. It never has. The clan was pushed to the brink, and their rights were taken from them; furthermore, they were also barred from politics (isolation, physical and metaphorical, which resulted from decades of discrimination, segregation, and surveillance) when none of this was agreed upon in the sighed “Treaty” between the founding clans. (I don’t believe for a moment that this Fandom is intelligent enough to understand the idea of “justice”, though it does enjoy plunging headlong into it.) To breach the treaty means to alter the agreed-upon precepts, without the clan’s consent. That isn’t ethical, moral, or just in any civilized set-up (there’s a reason why none of this was made public; because if it were, it’d have galvanized the other clans into action out of self-preservation; no clan would choose to stay with a regime that, in lieu of meeting just demands, chooses genocide as its first option); furthermore, “population movement” is a war-crime that demanded an open revolt, not a covert coup; so I don’t know why all of this upsets this fandom so much when this isn’t supported by the very idea of “justice” in any non-fascist break down of its dimensions.
In this regard, what “what” does is that it removes the “challenge” the characters (along with their themes) present to the central theme of the manga itself, which in Naruto’s case is a morbidly antagonistic stance towards any character that stands against established fascistic hegemonies, no matter what the costs. That challenge is created by why. When you don’t ask the “why”, you only define things with “what”. The challenge disappears. The other perspective disappears. The other narrative disappears. What you’re left with is your own tendency to align your identity with that of the characters on the basis of your understandings of a myriad of contexts that create socio-political mores world over.
As a result, Naruto is identifiable on the basis of being a social pariah; Sakura is identifiable on the basis of being a middle-class faceless person in a world of powerful families; etc.; in this context, victims of mass-slaughters are too alien to identify with (never mind the fact that many of these readers support the troops that mass-slaughter people in many middle-eastern countries as we speak; so to stand against this ideology is to stand against the state); and as they’re the aliens (Kishimoto went for the literal thing, too; isn’t he clever as nearly the whole Fandom bought it? This Fandom likes to over-estimate its talents), it’s easier to not only disassociate from them but also easier to desperately reconcile the soft-framing of fascists with knee-jerk reactions from the readers themselves via identifying too deeply with characters shunned by Sasuke; it becomes a silly game of “what I identity with is superior to other characters as it defines me” rather than “why should I identify with characters that represent fascist regimes, at all?” In other words: “what I like is well-written as I see myself in this, and what I don’t like is poorly written as I don’t see myself in this; this character defines me socio-politically, therefore, it’s just; but this character doesn’t, therefore, it’s unjust.” It’s never a matter of true justice (that’s born of true equality). No, it’s a matter of what reflects the concept of me. And once you search for yourself in everything, you can’t understand anything that goes beyond Self. (It isn’t uncommon for people in the western world to build their identities even around the products they consume, as well; In fact, it’s obscenely common.)
The “why”, on the other hand, presents Sasuke as a completely different character. Why defines the what: why was he cold to his friends? What happened in his past created a harsh and aggressive demeanor in which he experienced bouts of superiority and inferiority to others; why he went to Orochimaru? What Itachi did to him further pushed him downwards and made him re-experience the torments that compelled him to seek the man out that could give him solace; why did he betray Konoha? What the Leaf ordered was unethical as it took from him his entire identity as an individual and subjected him to unimaginable suffering that created in him a lack of Self, for which he fought; why he sought to break the Shinobi world’s hierarchy? What the Shadow Villages stand for is a hegemony that’s built on constant exploitation of others, his clan’s included; therefore, he desired to end the hegemony so that his clan’s tragedy couldn’t be repeated again; etc.
Why defines a Sasuke that’s so far removed from how what defines him. What’s interesting is that people don’t ask the whys when it comes to Itachi: what Itachi did for Sasuke, not what or why he did to Sasuke. That little prepositional change in the middle alters everything: the former makes Sasuke the aggressor; the latter makes him the victim. It’s the little difference between what's and whys that create victims from aggressors and aggressors from victims.
It isn’t about the “right” or “wrong” nature of his persona, but how you see it. Narratively, it’s about the mechanisms of his passions and which way he directed them. It isn’t about flaws; it’s about facets. It isn’t binary; it’s non-binary. It isn’t stasis; it’s dynamism. By throwing the character in one box robs the character of its brilliance. In my eyes, Sasuke is passion. His clan is wholly defined by it. He doesn’t define stillness. He’s defined by the god that’s associated with storms; and a storm is un-feeling, un-thinking, un-assuming. When it comes down, it strikes down whatever it hits. It’s the most simple explanation of the effect of storms. In this regard, Kishimoto stating that Sasuke is “pure” does the character justice.
In many ways, Sasuke is like a storm. Leaf and her followers became the receivers of his aggression. And he unleashed his fury on them in whichever way he saw fit. Every action from them got responded with a passionate severity. (Nothing defines this more than the Kage Summit where anyone who stood with Leaf, stood against him; which is why he exhibited the same violence Leaf-Nin had prepared for him; you’re with me or you’re against me; no middle ground.) He’s restless. He doesn’t sit still. And neither does his mind.
Depression is stasis, in-action, stillness. Sasuke redefines that as he … moves the plot. In fact, Sasuke is the plot as he personifies the causality that creates it, so it’s his action that moves the plot and defines the narrative.
For instance, people don’t ask as to how Sasuke doesn’t use honorifics in the manga. That was done to showcase that he doesn’t respect hierarchy, a foreshadowing of what he would become. Sasuke also called himself a “true” Kage of Leaf, but the readers forget that he went for the “literal” meaning of Kage, which means “Shadow”. Becoming the world’s Shadow completes his theme to be the Yin of Yang and his own brother’s and clan’s collective burden. People also overlook as to how he switched his name from Hebi to Taka. The hawk devours the snake. One flies whilst the other crawls. This ties back to his dialogue to Orochimaru in which he called himself a “chick” and Orochimaru, a great serpent. The shift to this name means that he’s capable of flight; and what flies can see far and wide. A snake’s perspective is limited to the ground; a hawk sees all.
Many completely overlook how utterly brilliant this shift is. It isn’t just a change in name. No, it’s a complete alteration of personality, for which the groundwork was constructed back in part I: his lack of interest in hierarchies.
This bleeds into his complex relationship with Itachi, as well. To Sasuke, Itachi isn’t human: he’s either a deity (the perfect brother) or he’s the devil (the perfect source of his suffering). Itachi, too, is extreme for Sasuke as he sees things in the extreme. Sasuke’s character of passions and extremes, which is why when he swings, it’s the other extreme end because his character doesn’t know stillness and peace is stillness. When that “collective”, which existed inside Itachi’s image, is taken, he immediately shifts it to Leaf. There, “Collective Punishment” is meant to deliver justice, make things … completely exact. Justice is the great equalizer, and what’s more equal than returning the same courtesy to the source that delivered it? (This is another facet of godhood.)
Sasuke’s also a character that represents “conflict” and its every facet. He’s in a constant state of conflict with his brother, colleagues, state, and himself. Sasuke, in a truer sense, is his own antagonist as the word antagonist means “one who opposes”. It’s Sasuke that represents the true theme of antagonism. Without Sasuke, you’d have no conflict in any dimension of the manga as everything is either triggered by him, through him, or for him. And without any conflict, there’s no causality; and without causality, there’s no plot; and without plot, there’s no Naruto manga.
Sasuke, in this sense, is the perfect antagonist and, in turn, the perfect candidate to become god; and what is god if not an amalgam of extremes? People say a lot that Sasuke’s desire to fly for godhood came out of the blue, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Sasuke’s tendency to defy hierarchies, alter names, be an aggressive force of nature … has been a thing from the very beginning.
He also cuts his ties in the event of his mind’s alternation, softly or aggressively; so his nature to cut ties to evolve has been a constant factor in the manga. The closer he is to the extreme, the greater his reaction. Remember, why is challenge and what is acceptance; and this can be applied to anything in life. Anything. It just depends upon how you, or rather, why you see it the way you do.
The “tragedy” Sasuke represents is very Japanese in nature and very unlike the Western concept of tragedy. The reason for the tragic themes and endings of most Japanese fictions is philosophical in nature. Tragedy is attuned with the idea of a ‘closed world’ and a ‘contained place’ where values are known. Thus, Kabuki and Stuart tragedy exist where the premise exists: Tokugawa Japan and Cavalier England.
The Kabuki tragedy works on the idea that ‘duty and inclination’ are incompatible. It focuses on the aspects of choices of an individual. This oversimplification creates the suggestion that there is nothing more to life than this and now one knows the worst. Which is the reason for West’s fondness for Hamlet and Japan’s for Forty-Seven Ronin as such tragic views offer the people a security.
Then there’s the Japanese concept of Mono no Aware that Sasuke completely embodies and its association with the past and the acceptance of burden. There is a Japanese insistence upon the acceptance of the “unattractive traits” along with the “pleasing” ones. Thus, there are many “less reformed” characters in the Japanese cinema and “becoming better” is never a major theme, because bad is accepted along with the good as it’s a part of the way things are. This is why (again, not what) Sasuke, too, accepts Itachi and what he stands for and his family. In a way, his older brother and his clan are his greatest burden.
This is a part of mono no aware that talks of the transience of all earthly things and it celebrates the idea of resignation. Actions that arise from such a viewpoint tend to be melodramatic and sentimental. Such mono no aware films often suggest the Shimpa, by the way.
Thus, Rashomon, with its multiple worlds of reality presented something that is uncommon to Japanese thought. Japanese drama and film usually deal with a single reality and it is rare for them to penetrate this existence, which is why Japanese films are mostly concerned with emotionalism than any higher tragic feeling. For instance, to a Japanese reader Hamlet is a faithful son who is avenging his father. He is a good son who loves his mother like all good sons should. In Western thought, higher emotions are those were the individual and his problems are sacrificed to the well-being of the society. But, in Japan, society remains the family system. Again, Sasuke is about a single existence that has a single path and that path is entirely defined by clan. To reject that is to reject the Japanese nature of Sasuke’s character.
Take, for instance, the Yamato-e paintings and how Kishimoto translated them into Sasuke and the Uchiha Clan’s tale. In the past, their Japanese subject matter led to some unique features in the illustrative narrative handscrolls, which was the art drawn by the members of the court and were made to be circulated amongst the aristocratic connoisseurs.
The public was linked to the masculine (otoko) principle and seen in hare manifestations such as Chinese-style architecture and poetry script. The inner would was the feminine (onna) principle, and had indigenous arts associated with it.
The contrasts between the exterior and interior worlds of Heian courtiers were expressed differently and in different styles and techniques: onna-e with introvert and emotional feeling and otoko-e with extrovert and physical action, which is why the latter is often linked to historical events such as the founding of monasteries or where the focus is on actual events. It’s interesting that the Sharingan is the eye that manifests the emotions. It’s the eye in which the inner and the outer worlds meet. The architecture of the Uchiha Clan is the most Japanese.
Japanese religious education mimicked the aforementioned artistic practice. Thus, e-bushi illustrated the ‘glories of Paradise’ and the ‘torments of Hell’. These were called the Rokudo-e paintings (paintings of the Six Paths) and their main subject matter was the dichotomy between the Impure Land and the Pure Land. It warned those people who didn’t recite Amida’s name that were risking disease, deformity and the horrors of hell. Hungry Ghosts graphically showed that the attachment to things in this life led to a bondage in the next. Gluttons experienced hunger pangs. All of these link back to the Uchiha mythos and define Sasuke’s identity as he merges both of the ideas that were popular in the Heian and later periods.
The best example of the “Impure Land” is that of the “Blood Pool Hell,” which is so obviously defined by the bleeding eyes just before Amaterasu and triggering of the Mangekyou Sharingan. It has several traditions, but “bleeding tears of sorrow” after the loss of a child (when a mother dies in birth) is one of the most prominent one; and the Uchiha feel love “deeply”.
Again, it’s defined wonderfully through Sasuke’s journey from the lowest regions of Impure Land to his desire to reach Pure Land through godhood. The groundwork for it is his entire journey: genocide; suffering; paranoia; cruel illusions cast by Itachi to deepen his resolve; acceptance of his destiny; etc. In this regard, godhood represents the ultimate escape for him. He’d still have the burden, but in a state of peace. Eternity is … peace.
Sasuke, throughout the course of the manga, has several moments of aggressive emotional breakdowns; however, before that, the narrative builds a slow descent that peels away the “haughty” exterior of an impossibly gifted boy to show the aggression that’s underneath. When Itachi comes by, he’s reverted back to the same state he’d left behind: a child who sought peace in others; when Obito tells him the truth, he experienced a trembling attack that threw him back into a state of restlessness; when Zetsu betrayed him, he’s cornered and has no choice but to respond to aggression with every bit of his own; when he comes face to face with Sakura, having seen Leaf’s treachery through Danzo (who wore his clan’s remnants on himself as if they were clothes that intensified his loathing of Leaf), he strikes at her as she’s a metaphor, an embodiment of everything Leaf stands for; when Itachi shows him the truth of that night, he goes back to worshiping him, deciding to take on the mantle to uphold his values; etc.
This shows that his “conflict” merely shifts from one aspect to the next, then to the next, then to the next … The best example of Sasuke’s conflict, that lack of peace, was seen when he ran out of chakra and Orochimaru was about to come out. Itachi was approaching him, and he knew he had nothing on him. At that moment when all of his bravado was gone, his legs … started shaking. In that single moment, he turned back into the child who wept and trembled that night at the sight of the man who inflicted great suffering on him; and that is the very reason why Sasuke is the way he is; and that is the reason why he’s a character that goes beyond the idea of “flaw”.
Last but not least, you’d find heinous posts in this fandom, littered across various social-media platforms that “support” what Sasuke stands againt. Say whatever you want to say, but when a Fandom backs genocides by using real-world atrocities (while backing them up, too), I get the feeling that it isn’t only about the character anymore.Alister MacQuarrie sheds light on this:
“The closer rebel characters come to a definable ideology, the more likely they are to be written as villains. At the same time, the emotive aspects of rebellion - the heroism of the underdog, the thrill of fighting the power - are rendered safe for public consumption by taking out any explicit political ideology. Even when rebels jump out of the screen, like the Guy Fawkes masks borrowed from V for Vendetta by real protestors, they are often diluted. In the transition from comic to film to symbol of protest, the more detailed exploration of anarchism in the original text is lost, leaving a void that can be filled by a wide variety of groups whose only common thread is opposition to authority. The effect of all this is to suggest that violence is somehow more sympathetic the less its perpetrators believe - that heroism decreases the more detailed your policy proposals get. If Luke Skywalker was fighting for galactic communism, or Daenerys intended to create a series of peasants’ councils to govern Westeros, or Harry Potter wanted to smash the Ministry of Magic and overturn wizard supremacy, we would have to confront serious and difficult questions about when political violence is appropriate, for whose benefit, and for what purposes. I don’t believe those are questions pop culture is incapable of asking. They are questions we do not want to ask.”
Is it really about a fictional character or is it about what he represents? The visceral loathing for Sasuke isn’t just self-inserting into the people that he shuns as the above article demonstrates. People, I suppose, enjoy one side of the argument, one that aligns well with their political outlooks ad infinitum, many of which are rooted in imperialism, nationalism, and jingoism. As Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie rightly stated: “So that is how to create a single story, show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become.” And at the end: “Stories matter. Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity.”
Or perhaps it’s as Orwell stated: “What people always demand of a popular novelist is that he shall write the same book over and over again, forgetting that a man who would write the same book twice could not even write it once.”
“A ‘change of heart’ is in fact the alibi of people who do not wish to endanger the status quo.”
The thing is, Sasuke’s story is akin to the oppression faced by the downtrodden in many states world over. He also challenges the reader to rethink that stance on politics. How hard is it to rethink; and how easy it is to just … think of the same things you keep thinking about.
Fin
sasuke naruto naruto manga meta long meta analysis ask answer uchiha uchiha clan justice law state
756Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡFgqtE3evAf
